The Strong, Silent Type(ology): Examining Intersections of Alexithymia and the Drive for Muscularity

Conformity to masculine norms, masculine discrepancy stress, and changes in muscle dysmorphia symptoms

Muscle dysmorphia (MD) is a severe psychiatric illness; however, little is known regarding risk factors for MD development. Conformity to masculine norms may represent a risk factor for MD, but research has yet to establish temporal ordering for these relationships. Masculine discrepancy stress (distress at not amounting to masculine stereotypes) could represent a mechanism underlying these relationships. Therefore, the current study examined longitudinal relationships between conformity to masculine norms, masculine discrepancy stress, and MD symptoms. Participants were 272 men displaying elevated MD symptoms who completed self-report questionnaires at three timepoints. An autoregressive cross-lagged mediation model was specified to examine relationships between conformity to masculine norms and MD symptoms and test if masculine discrepancy stress mediated these relationships. Masculine discrepancy stress did not mediate relationships between masculine norms and MD symptoms. However, MD symptoms predicted increased masculine discrepancy stress, and conformity to masculine norms was related to MD symptoms. MD symptoms were both a predictor and outcome of masculine norms, and signs for relationships differed on the masculine norm endorsed. Conformity to masculine norms may represent a risk factor and outcome for MD symptoms. If clinicians provide clients with tools to reduce rigid adherence to masculine identities, this may prevent MD symptom development.

Variance Composition, Reliability, Validity, and Measurement Invariance of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 in Nonclinical Samples

The present study extended prior work on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20). The TAS-20 total scale score is commonly used in research in the psychology of men and masculinities and in clinical practice, but most published confirmatory factor analyses (CFA's) do not support this use. Using a sample of 913 men and women, variance composition was assessed, and model-based dimensionality and reliability coefficients were calculated, finding evidence for unidimensionality, which supports the use of the total scale raw score but not that of the subscales, although the model fit was less than desired. Convergent and concurrent evidence was found for the validity of the TAS-20 in men as a unidimensional scale (N = 505) by examining relationships with latent variables of several constructs in the nomological network. An assessment of measurement invariance by gender (men, women) found evidence for metric invariance, indicating that cisgender men and women understand the scale in the same way. It is recommended that the TAS-20 scale developers follow recommended procedures to trim composite measurement scales to improve the psychometric properties (i.e., model fit) of the TAS.